The Geologic Column as Taught Is An Evolutionary Myth, Existing Only In Textbooks. (hell, genesis)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought to start a new thread on the complete myth of the geologic columns existing anywhere on earth as taught in schools, for the express purpose of supporting the myth of evolution; but I see that others have -of course- covered the ground, so I begin with an old post from a closed thread.
Fighting For Air
First, Richard Dawkins is the epitome of arrogant ignorance ... the type of pseudo-scientist that likes to try to convince himself and others that he is smarter than he actually is. Case in point: Dawkins recently gave a speech (it's up on youtube) where he states the best way to date fossils found in sedimentary layers of rock is to use a series of radiometric dating methods to date the surrounding "igneous rock" and use that as foundation for the date of the fossils. Anyone with even a basic high school understanding of geology knows just how silly Dawkins's assertion is. According to the uniformitarian geological model, the sedimentary rock should have been laid down hundreds of thousands or millions of years after the igneous rock had formed.
Secondly, one of my best friends is a volcanologist/geologist who has worked in Hawaii, Peru, Vanuatu, and on Mt. St. Helens. By his own research, radiometric dating of lava flows doesn't work. By his own work, the suppossed "geologic column" is a myth and the use of index fossils to date rock is circular reasoning with no basis in fact. Dawkins exposes his ignorance of geology in his speech. He is so blinded by his own religious bias that he is entirely unobjective and unscientific in much of what he claims.
Third, the Cambrian explosion and the discovery of pre-cambrian soft bodied fossils is unexplained by evolutionary models. Evolutionists like to try to contend that they have no explanation for the Cambrian explosion because organisms that predate the Cambrian era must have been too soft bodied to have been preserved in the fossil record. However, pre-cambrian soft bodied organisms have been found in "pre-cambrian" rock so there is no explanation for why there should not also be fossils of hard bodied organisms in the same strata.
Fourth, the best geological and fossil evidence does not support the conclusions of evolutionary biology. The so called "tree of life" as it is depicted in textbooks is a fallacy. It shows a very few organisms branching off and diversifying into all of the varied species that would come later. Tree of life narrow at the bottom and wide at the top - an inverted cone shape or up-side-down pyramid. The fossil record demonstrrates just the opposite - wide at the bottom and narrower towards the top ... fewer and fewer different types of organisms and less and less diversity as various different types of critters become extinct and as genetic information and variation is lost - not gained.
Fifth, I am not confusing abiogenesis with evolution - just trying to point out that they are related. Both are unobservable, untestable, and unreproducible. These are requirements of good science. That is not my definition, but that has been the technical accepted definition.
For the evolution of all species from common ancestors, we have 2 options:
A) The first simple organisms must have contained all the genetic information
that is currently present in all the resulting species.
or
B) Beneficial genetic mutations occurred in existing organisms that created
new genetic information that was then passed along to subsequent
generations and each successive generation accumulated more and more
new genetic information until it becomes something that it was not.
"A" above is automatically out of consideration because if a critter possessed that much genetic information, that genetic information would not "all" be switched off and so therefore, that organism would hardly be a simple critter.
As well, geneticists have established that certain genetic code cannot co-exist in the same organism with some other genetic code ... so again, "A" is out.
Thus, we are left with "B" above. The problem with this premise is that it is again unobservable, untestable, and unreproducible that any genetic mutations will create new beneficial genetic information that can be passed along to subsequent generations. It is also well establshied that acquired characteristcs in organisms are not inherited by offspring.
Evolutionists try to point to lots of examples like resistant bacteria. The problem is that microbiologists have already established that resistant bacteria are not bacteria that mutate and obtain more genetic information. The resistant bacteria are constantly present and only flourish when non-resistant bacteria are not around. Take away the antibiotic and re-introduce non-resistant bacteria and the resistant strain quickly diminishes.
There are numerous other examples in virtually all fields of scientific study. We could fill pages and pages of this thread with all the legitimate scientific findings that are in conflict with evolutionary conclusions.
In short ... there are no intermediate fossils in the fossil record. Evolutionists like to claim there are, but that does not make it so. Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Neanderthal, archaeopteryx, snakehead... etc have all been discounted as frauds, mistakes, or invalid examples of intermediate/transitionary fossils.
As well, evolutionary timelines are constantly readjusted every time a new finding blows holes in the first assertions.
Let's follow the progression of evolutionary hypothesis:
"Small gradual changes over extremely long periods of time"
"Wait that doesn't work out ... hmmm.... not enough time for this to happen."
"Wait, I've got it ... beneficial genetic mutations. Though we've never seen any type of beneficial genetic mutation that could make one critter advance or turn into some other type of critter, that has to be the answer."
"Wait a tic ... that doesn't seem to work either."
"Hey, how about this: Earth was seeded by interstellar DNA. Yeah, that's gotta be it."
This is what happens when inductive reasoning replaces deductive reasoning. Should your belief drive the interpretations of your observations or should your objective observations drive your belief?
Evolutionary thought is just as much about the tail wagging the dog as any religious doctrine.
To put evolutionary conclusions another way, follow the claims:
"The Earth is millions of years old."
"Wait ... hmmm... that's not gonna work out. OK, the Earth is hundreds of
millions of years old. Hang on, that's not going to work either. OK, the
Earth must be billions of years old."
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years.
Make no mistake, evolution is not science. It is a religion.
If you don't believe me, check out quotes directly from prominent evolutionists themselves:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (Matthews L.H., "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," [1872], Everyman's University Library: J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1972, reprint, p.xi)
"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non-scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. (Lipson, H.S., "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138)
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." (Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. --- Michael Ruse
True science rocks.
Evolution is not true science.
Last edited by yeshuasavedme; 08-07-2009 at 10:39 AM..
The geologic column is a myth, existing no place on eareth but in fairy tale evolutionary textbooks.
Why do evolutionists believe the myth of the geologic column?
If you did, you would see that this is junk 'science' manufactured to try and prove something that is so outrageous as to only be accepted on faith.
So where is the geologic column to be seen, in fact, as it is laid out in the fairy tale books on evolution?
Where is your proof that there is a geologic column laid down on earth anywhere, stacked exactly as the charts show it to be, in the textbooks used for the fairy tale of evolution?
There is no point in debating with someone that discounts and entire body of science with pseudoscience whose sole purpose is to prop up a religious fantasy.
Hey YSM, maybe you should stop posting 10 times a day and start living a Christ-like life. Because it seems you are hell-bent on starting fights and arguments that have long been debated and settled. Maybe there is a reason the old thread was closed, huh?
So where is the geologic column to be seen, in fact, as it is laid out in the fairy tale books on evolution?
Where is your proof that there is a geologic column laid down on earth anywhere, stacked exactly as the charts show it to be, in the textbooks used for the fairy tale of evolution?
Better to remain silent and be deemed a fool, than to open your mouth and utterly remove all doubt about it. To completely discount every shred of scientific evidence about so many things is preposterous and delusional at best. You do your fellow Christians no good deed by posting such incredibly ignorant drivel.
You do not have to discount science in order to believe in your god.
Hey YSM, maybe you should stop posting 10 times a day and start living a Christ-like life. Because it seems you are hell-bent on starting fights and arguments that have long been debated and settled. Maybe there is a reason the old thread was closed, huh?
I think it reached about a thousand posts.
That was a good post to open with.
You have no idea what a Christ-like life is, when lived.
There is no geologic column existing anywhere on earth at this time nor has there been at any time, as portrayed in the textbooks.
The geologic column is a myth.
It is just one of the many myths believed by evolutionists who worship at the feet of the small minded, ill educated racist, Charles Darwin.
Bring your proof, just one, of the geologic column existing in fact, or ever having existed in fact.
-you know that you cannot prove it, because it is a fairy tale which you have chosen to accept against all reason, as your "truth".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone with even a basic high school understanding of geology knows just how silly Dawkins's assertion is. According to the uniformitarian geological model, the sedimentary rock should have been laid down hundreds of thousands or millions of years after the igneous rock had formed.
To completely discount every shred of scientific evidence about so many things is preposterous and delusional at best. You do your fellow Christians no good deed by posting such incredibly ignorant drivel. 
